Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Used Games

Posts

I cannot wait for the day where used games are not allowed, and you have to be connected to the internet to play the game and you can only play it on one system, and you get charged 20$ a month extra each month you play the game and 20$ extra each time you plug in a second controller.

It's coming sooner than you think.

And I am losing interest in the entire game medium sooner than I thought i would.

Honestly, except for indy small games and off the radar type of games that rarely get press but always end up having threads in these forums, I cannot say I have cared much for the series/games/companies that are going in that eventual direction. In some game types the sameness is just such a turn off, everything is getting really generic on some subsurface levels. DLC especially, each game today might as well just release the same DLC with a different graphical style.

Because widespread blu-ray adoption hasn't yet taken place, while pretty much everybody has the interwebs?

Also consider the costs of manufacturing, distribution, negotiating retail space etc. in comparison with using digital services

I bet just as many people have Blu-Ray as have high speed internet.

Wow. Seriously? On PCs? That's just so, so, so wrong.

Which means that absent the money charged for the DLC, there would be no DLC. And in this case pushing back a release date is the equivalent of spending money.

You really think there's never been a case in the history of downloadable pay content where they deliberately divorced something from the main game just so they could sell it separately later? I'll admit I have no proof of this (and barring someone from the development team admitting it, something which might cost them their job, we're unlikely to see such proof), but it's just such an obvious thing to do I'd be extremely surprised if it has never happened. Publishers are not exactly famous for their scruples.

As far as bigger DLC content (stuff like several hour expansions, ala Fallout 3, etc) I have no doubt you are quite correct though.

Because widespread blu-ray adoption hasn't yet taken place, while pretty much everybody has the interwebs?

Also consider the costs of manufacturing, distribution, negotiating retail space etc. in comparison with using digital services

I bet just as many people have Blu-Ray as have high speed internet.

Hee. Good one.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

Because widespread blu-ray adoption hasn't yet taken place, while pretty much everybody has the interwebs?

Also consider the costs of manufacturing, distribution, negotiating retail space etc. in comparison with using digital services

I bet just as many people have Blu-Ray as have high speed internet.

Hee. Good one.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

Next time you see one for less than $20 will you pick it up for me?

Thanks.

Also do you have any numbers from reality to support this assertion or are you just shooting from the hip here

Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

*Any* DLC content that is available Day One, the same launch day as the disc, is content that *has* been held back and should be on the disc.

And you don't have to be such a dick.

YOU. ARE. FUCKING. WRONG.

NO, I'M NOT.

We've had a developer, right here in this very thread, explaining exactly why you're wrong.

You really think there's never been a case in the history of downloadable pay content where they deliberately divorced something from the main game just so they could sell it separately later? I'll admit I have no proof of this (and barring someone from the development team admitting it, something which might cost them their job, we're unlikely to see such proof), but it's just such an obvious thing to do I'd be extremely surprised if it has never happened. Publishers are not exactly famous for their scruples.

As far as bigger DLC content (stuff like several hour expansions, ala Fallout 3, etc) I have no doubt you are quite correct though.

I'm sure it's probably happened at least once. But it's actually something that would be pretty hard to do, because you have to make sure that your game actually feels "complete" with the content excised or you risk serious blowback (and from normal people, not just guys like PPKKBB who are obsessed with on-disc content to the point of irrationality).

You really think there's never been a case in the history of downloadable pay content where they deliberately divorced something from the main game just so they could sell it separately later? I'll admit I have no proof of this (and barring someone from the development team admitting it, something which might cost them their job, we're unlikely to see such proof), but it's just such an obvious thing to do I'd be extremely surprised if it has never happened. Publishers are not exactly famous for their scruples.

As far as bigger DLC content (stuff like several hour expansions, ala Fallout 3, etc) I have no doubt you are quite correct though.

I'm sure it's probably happened at least once. But it's actually something that would be pretty hard to do, because you have to make sure that your game actually feels "complete" with the content excised or you risk serious blowback (and from normal people, not just guys like PPKKBB who are obsessed with on-disc content to the point of irrationality).

you would basically have to do something like the Prince of Persia Epilogue, but on day 1 to have any serious blowback.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

Because widespread blu-ray adoption hasn't yet taken place, while pretty much everybody has the interwebs?

Also consider the costs of manufacturing, distribution, negotiating retail space etc. in comparison with using digital services

I bet just as many people have Blu-Ray as have high speed internet.

Hee. Good one.

Well okay, it's probably not 50/50, but considering that Blu-Rays have dropped in price dramatically (hell you can walk into best buy and see Blu-Rays for less than $20 regularly), and you can get Blu-Ray players for $100, BR adoption is more widespread than he thinks.

also, current estimates have dvd household adoption around 90 million for the low end. High-speed internet is around that level too. Blu-ray, although its being adopted at a fairly quick rate, is nowhere near this. Just because some blu-ray dvd's are cheap does not somehow magically mean they are in a ton of homes

Wouldn't that just be weighing jobs differently? If a game producer isn't getting that money, aren't they going to limit their hiring or staff? It's just hurting the jobs of some people for the jobs of other people, which isn't even a for sure thing unless you known the internal tactical plans of Gamestop and game publishers. As I recall, Gamestop is still a fairly profitable business. That means that on top of the money they are making to pay off all their expenses (including payroll,) they're making extra money on top of that to give back to investors or to reinvest in their company. Personally, I'd rather that profit be going to the people that are actually making the content than companies like Gamestop that are freeriding because that would reward actual production.

The assumption that Gamestop would drop employees if they were dropping profit is not necessarily true. Gamestops appear to be run according to a corporate rulebook to maximize payroll/revenue. Even without the highly profitable used game model, or even a small portion of that model, chances are they have as many people working the stores as there needs to be. Retail in general is based around rock bottoming payroll as much as possible. Assuming excess is more unlikely.

your argument would be sound if not for 2 things. 1: there are redundancy that game stop doesn't need. IE a third person on staff for truck days holiday staff etc. 2:there is a difference between jobs. Namely the turnaround of cash. someone working for game stop is probably living paycheck to paycheck. someone working for THQ or EA is more likely to have it store it. this means that the money that goes to the game stop employee will revolve again.

For the first point, I've never worked at a gamestop, but I assume overflow staff is designed for specific situations where the business matches the opportunity cost of an extra employee with quicker operation. Could they lower payroll? Sure. Would it be at risk of lowering their service as a customer service business? Possibly. In a highly competitive environment like retail, that's something they'll build into their service.

The turnaround of cash has nothing to do with the difference in the jobs. Even if someone isn't spending 100% of their paycheck, they tend to be doing something with it through investment or savings. Both of which go back into the economy. Also, you'd have to make the argument that gamestop couldn't make a solvent business without trade in revenue. I just looked through the Gamestop Financial Report and they claim that 26.4% of their income is from used game sales. Considering the cost to refurbish, store, tax, buy and maintain these used games, and their profit for fiscal year 2009 was 2.4 billion dollars. This more than covers the used market they operate in. Quite simply, their business model, used or no, is still profitable.

Unfortunately, their financial statement doesn't say exactly what amount they spent on used games vs. revenue they take in, but from my experience at gamestop, they usually buy games for about half their resell value. Even if they're buying at around 25%, they're still making so much money that the profit would still cover it.

So what are they doing with their money. Well, they're expanding in the US and abroad, hiring employees, and investing some of it. What would the video game producers be doing? Well, they'd like be working to expand, hire, and invest that money. Money just doesn't get "stored" though. If you put it in the bank, the bank is using that money to fill up their reserve percentage to loan out more money to all kinds of ventures to in turn make money. If they spend that money on retail, the effect is the same anyway. Maybe it won't help out Gamestop employees, but it will feed companies that employ low wage labor.

100% of the sale from customer will go to a different game or system. This means that a new game will not be sold dew to fees. so your not just robbing game stop and the people that work there but other developers.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. What money are you talking about? What fees?

This thread has been a clusterfuck for the past 10 pages. Mr. PoopShitButt, or whatever the hell your name is? Stop. You are not contributing to the thread, and never really were. You are a troll or a cretin; your precise designation is academic at this point. You are no longer welcome in this thread.

Everyone else? Stop responding to him. Discussing DLC in the context of gaming value and whatnot is fine, but "all DLC is a plot by evil executives to remove content from games" is a stupid, self-evidently wrong statement that adds no value to this discussion.

/mod hat off

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

i don't mind not paying for multiplayer, if I'm not paying for it. in fact, there are games I play for the one player content (splinter cell) where I wouldn't mind being able to buy the new game in two halves.

i don't mind not paying for multiplayer, if I'm not paying for it. in fact, there are games I play for the one player content (splinter cell) where I wouldn't mind being able to buy the new game in two halves.

I almost never play multiplayer on games. Why not give me a cheaper copy with no multiplayer code on the disc?

If multiplayer is worth fifteen bucks, or whatever, then why do I only get a $5 discount on the used game without it?

I'm half serious there, but really, it's all about the value-minus. It's the same thing that happened to Sony with BC. It may not have a short term effect on sales, but it will have a lasting effect on good-will and rhetoric.

I almost never play multiplayer on games. Why not give me a cheaper copy with no multiplayer code on the disc?

If multiplayer is worth fifteen bucks, or whatever, then why do I only get a $5 discount on the used game without it?

The market takes care of that. If you wanted to play, say, multiplayer matches in the new Ghostbusters game, you would have to get the game within three months of release. After three months, the multiplayer community dries up. After six months, the multiplayer scene is dead and the game is marked down to $40 instead of $60. Games with very popular online multiplayer elements (CoD4, Halo) stick around for a long time but everything else goes pfffft after half a year. You'll see price drops by then, too, as well as used stock to choose from.

Publishers might rely on the Gamestop-esque stores as one of their main publicity outlets right now (making them a semi-necessary evil for the game companies), but considering the slowly shifting trend towards digital distribution for PC and Consoles we might find in ten years that these stores are going to be their own undoing.

For the Americans that want brick-and-mortar, there'll still be the Walmarts and other department stores. The game stores generally rely on a combination of those secondhand sales and upsells like game guarantees, cables, cheap carry cases etc to make themselves profitable. They don't actually make much of anything off a new game sale. If people are buying their games online and downloading, they're not going to care about a second hand copy. And if people want multiplayer and publishers start including these single-use codes, again, everyone's going to buy new copies. The game store companies are going to find a large source of their revenue evaporate.

Of course for people who use Steam, or whatever the Xbox Live Marketplace is going to be in five years, this is even more of a non-issue.

Yeah, but us Steam users still need to buy console games once in a while.

True enough, but what I was just saying in that post in a roundabout way was that probably within 5-10 years a combination of cheap, available bandwidth and the hard drive sizes that ship with consoles will be so big and fast that downloading the kind of console games (from say XBox Live) we get on a disc now will be a trivial undertaking.

You meet one person who creates games for a living, just one, and it becomes very difficult to maintain this virtuous fiction.

I imagine that when you do talk with devs and publishers all the time, you become a lot more familiar with their argument against used games.

I don't have too much of a problem with companies that include DLC credits or other goodies as an incentive to buy new, but I also think the implicit argument that they're entitled to recompense any time anyone experiences their content, ever, is garbage.

The one that really pisses me off is the thought that we should have to (specifically on the 360) pay for game x multiplayer when I'm already paying for Live. The whole point of paying for Live is that I get to play multiplayer on all of my games. I'd be disappointed if it happened to me on PSN, but at least I'm not expressly handing money to Sony in an envelope with "this is for coop campaigns and team deathmatch" written on it.

For the Americans that want brick-and-mortar, there'll still be the Walmarts and other department stores. The game stores generally rely on a combination of those secondhand sales and upsells like game guarantees, cables, cheap carry cases etc to make themselves profitable. They don't actually make much of anything off a new game sale

Not to be a bother, but Walmarts and others don't stock up on any titles other than big names, you might find a Final Fantasy in Walmart but not any of the Persona's or anything of speciality. I actually perfer EBGames/Gamestop for any Persona's and such. Walmarts here don't carry anywhere near the game capacity as EB/GS even though used games are one of its biggest sales points. Similarly I doubt that people would always want to have it downloadable, certainly not the collectors/semi-collectors who wants a hard copy.

So I would contest that they don't make a profit out of new games, I would think that they do.

Nobody makes money on new games. That's why (last I knew) Best Buy/Target/etc employees don't get to use their employee discount on them. GameStop likes being that specialty shop though because it gets you in the door and increases the chance that you'll trade something in, buy something used, or pick up anything else that they carry with a better profit margin.

I almost never play multiplayer on games. Why not give me a cheaper copy with no multiplayer code on the disc?

If multiplayer is worth fifteen bucks, or whatever, then why do I only get a $5 discount on the used game without it?

The market takes care of that. If you wanted to play, say, multiplayer matches in the new Ghostbusters game, you would have to get the game within three months of release. After three months, the multiplayer community dries up. After six months, the multiplayer scene is dead and the game is marked down to $40 instead of $60. Games with very popular online multiplayer elements (CoD4, Halo) stick around for a long time but everything else goes pfffft after half a year. You'll see price drops by then, too, as well as used stock to choose from.

The problem with the market taking care of things is having to wait for the market to take care of things.

Why should I have to WAIT to play single player (let alone spend months risking the game's plot being ruined)?

The point is that the entire model is screwed up, and rather than tryin to fix it, publishers are complicating it further.

I almost never play multiplayer on games. Why not give me a cheaper copy with no multiplayer code on the disc?

If multiplayer is worth fifteen bucks, or whatever, then why do I only get a $5 discount on the used game without it?

The market takes care of that. If you wanted to play, say, multiplayer matches in the new Ghostbusters game, you would have to get the game within three months of release. After three months, the multiplayer community dries up. After six months, the multiplayer scene is dead and the game is marked down to $40 instead of $60. Games with very popular online multiplayer elements (CoD4, Halo) stick around for a long time but everything else goes pfffft after half a year. You'll see price drops by then, too, as well as used stock to choose from.

The problem with the market taking care of things is having to wait for the market to take care of things.

Why should I have to WAIT to play single player (let alone spend months risking the game's plot being ruined)?

The point is that the entire model is screwed up, and rather than tryin to fix it, publishers are complicating it further.

Evander,

What is your point, exactly? Are you basically just arguing that you want new games to be cheaper?